Review of the
Hennepin County
Bicycle Transportation Plan

Links to official documents

Maps: Note that the blue routes are labeled as "bikeways on/off
roadway" -- so it is not possible to determine whether they are one, the other, or
both. But as the red lines indicate "independent corridor trails", the
off-roadway sections pretty much have to be sidepaths.

Executive Summary, adopted 1996, reprint 2, September, 2001. Confirms
that sidepaths are a major part of the plan. More details are in the review that follows.

City of Minneapolis information on rules of the road -- generally good advice, but does not describe
situations specific to Minneapolis -- in particular, what rules of the road might apply to
center-of-the-road bike lanes.

City of Minneapolis information on how to avoid bicycle crashes -- includes advice to stay outside the
door zone, though the City has constructed bike lanes in the door zone. Includes good
advice on using lights at night and on riding through conventional intersections
-- but no advice on how to ride in a bike lane in the middle of the street.

General criticisms

The following are my major criticisms, based on my reading of the Executive Summary. I
note that only the Executive Summary is online, not the full report. However, a proper
Executive Summary should cover all of the important points in a report. I am assuming that
this one does.

If that assumption si correct, it is my opinion that the Hennepin County Bicycle Plan
is seriously deficient and unbalanced in its emphasis.

The plan is only a bicycle route plan and a description of geometrics
for various types of bikeways.. It does not live up to its name as a bicycle
transportation plan. The four E's -- Engineering, Education, Enforcement and Encouragement
-- have been well-known for decades as essential to an effective and balanced bicycle
program. The plan only describes engineering measures.

The plan concerns itself mostly with developing a system of through
bicycle routes that cover distances over which cycling is very rarely used for
transportation (see map). Creating through routes suitable for novice cyclists, as this
plan appears to try to do, is not an effective transportation strategy. Novice cyclists
generally do not use their bicycles for transportation over long distances.

Neighborhood connectivity -- the ability to get directly to nearby
destinations -- is far more of an issue for bicycle transportation than are long-distance
routes. There is no mention of the issue of connectivity. This issue is a very serious
concern in suburbs, where sprawled cul-de-sac residential and business development
often requires long, circuitous routes on arterial streets to cover short distances. A Web page on this site discusses the issue of connectivity
in more detail.

The plan creates the impression that cyclists need special bicycle
facilities the way trains need tracks. But, except in urban areas, the designated routes
are spaced so widely that they can not serve most trip generators. There is no
discussion of bicycle travel or facilities improvements anywhere else than on the
designated routes.

The plan describes sidepaths as "on a par" with
"bicycle-compatible roadways". Research has repeatedly shown sidepaths to be
hazardous. They also delay cyclists because of the need to yield to traffic in cross
streets, even when traveling on an arterial. AASHTO bicycle facility guidelines strongly
discourage sidepaths.

"Bicycle compatible roadways" are described as only those
which are specially designated for bicycle use. While designated roadways may receive
special treatment and that may improve them, these are only a small minority of roadways
which are attractive and safe for bicycle use.

There is no mention whatever of the effect of traffic volume on the
suitability of a roadway for bicycle use. This is an especially important omission because
local and collector streets, which account for the great majority of street mileage, serve
cyclists well due to their low traffic volume. Rural roads that carry little traffic also
do not need improvement, and are favorites with cyclists for recreational riding.

There is no evaluation of existing facilities and programs to identify
problems which need to be remedied. A particularly stunning omission is the absence of any
discussion of the very unusual and nonstandard middle-of-the-street bicycle lanes in
Minneapolis, or of the issues contingent on the high volume of bicycle traffic in and
around the University of Minnesota campus.

There is no mention of bicycle parking, or bikes on transit, or any
other useful amenities for cyclists.

There is no review of data on bicycle use and bicycle crashes. Such a
review would be necessary to identify priorities and to develop a cost-effective program
for crash reduction.

All in all, the report shows very little evidence of awareness of the
body of work in safety research, engineering or bicycle program design which underlie
better programs elsewhere.

Review of the Executive Summary

The preceding discusses mostly what is omitted from the Executive
Summary. The following paragraphs discuss what is included in it.

To its credit, the plan indicates that the County supports bicycle use and
descrribes the role of the county in planning for bicycling, previously regarded as a
local concern: "Hennepin County believes that there is a critical need to establish a
safe, convenient bicycle transportation system." (p. iv). "It is envisioned that
an extensive countywide bikeway system will be designed to serve all types of bicyclists
regardless of their levels of rider expertise or travel destination." (p. 5)

But then the report qualifies this statement:

Although the goal of the plan is to provide full accommodation to all
types of bicyclists, existing conditions and constraints may require different levels of
accommodation from one corridor to the next. Five levels of accommodation (not necessarily
listed in order of importance) were developed for Hennepin County road right-of-ways:

Full Accommodation

Independent Trail

Bicycle Compatible Roadway

Multi-Use Path

Basic Roadway

It is sloppy and misleading to speak of different types of accommodation
as "levels." There is no intrinsic hierarchy among them. If, as the report
almost immediately indicates, these are "not necessarily in order of
importance", then why call them "levels" at all?

Now, let's examine the Executive Summary's description of the five
"levels": this description occupies almost the entire remainder of the Executive
Summary.

"Full accommodation" -- two-way sidepath
plus street with bike lanes.

"Full accommodation" (page 6) is defined as a roadway with
bicycle lanes, plus a sidepath. The photo illustrating this arrangement, which is
described as "ideal" (top level, that is, despite the disclaimer about levels),
shows a lightly traveled road with bike lanes, and a sidepath adjacent to a stone wall --
clearly a two-way sidepath, as there in none on the other side. "Wrong-way"
travel on a sidepath is highly hazardous, because drivers crossing the sidepath are
looking in the opposite direction for traffic.

I have sharpened the photo from the Plan, revealing that the cyclist --
the only cyclist who appears in any of the photos illustrating the five types of
accommodation -- has been added using photo editing. It's no wonder that the cyclist
had to be faked -- a cyclist of the sort who wears special cycling clothes would be
unlikely to ride on a sidepath which he or she would know to be highly hazardous at normal
bicycle travel speeds.

In the background (see arrow), is a driveway or cross street where the
approach of a cyclist would be concealed by the stone wall and by vegetation, increasing
the hazard.

With the wall adjacent to the sidepath, the example given in the photo
does not even conform to the cross-section diagram which is included in the Executive
summary. (This is one of many geometric diagrams in the Executive Summary online.
The others describe the other "levels".).

The quandary of "full accommodation" is that a sidepath
attracts novice cyclists without assuring their safety. The roadway accommodation shown in
the pictures, without the sidepath, would be entirely appropriate to any child a parent
would allow out of sight on a bicycle.

"Independent trail"

"Independent trail" (page 7) is described as the usual
multi-use trail on an abandoned rail right-of-way or other right-of-way where there is not
a road. The Plan states:

"The physical separation from traffic offered by trails is reassuring to casual
adult and children bicyclists. They are also popular with some advanced commuter riders at
those times during the day when the facility is not crowded with slower bicycle users,
pedestrians or other users."

Trails are popular, and can not be judged only on their merits for bicycling, as they
serve other constituencies besides cyclists. The quoted statement acknowledges that trails
are not safe for travel at full bicycle speed when crowded with other users. However, the
report does state that "the independent trails form a part of the primary bicycle
system due to their incorporation of limited vehicle crossings and grade
separations."

This is a problematic statement because it implies that other routes might be
disregarded if a trail is constructed. An alternate, parallel route might be needed when

the trail is crowded

it does not serve a trip generator, which is more usually along a road

it is not usable due to snow and/or ice in winter

Also note in the photo above that the trail is unpaved, raising issues of the
durability of the surface and making pavement markings impossible; there are wide tire
marks on the trail, suggesting that it is serving motor vehicles; and the far side of the
crossing is concealed from motor traffic by vegetation. This trail might be useful for
bicycling but it is by no means an optimum example.

"Bicycle compatible roadway"

"Bicycle compatible roadways" (page 9) are described as

a configuration of on-road space designated for multiple purposes including bicycles.
Other uses such as temporary parking for disabled vehicles are typically allowed. In some
urban situations such as in downtown Minneapolis and near the University of Minnesota, the
roadway space is actually designated for bicycles-only by appropriate signage (bike lane)
and pavement markings. Bicycle compatible roadways can be delineated with a painted
stripe, colored or textured pavement, or an extended concrete gutter section.

Bicycle compatible roadways are excellent facilities for avid bicyclists and some
casual adult riders (depending on traffic conditions). Many Hennepin County roadways are
designated or could be designated as bicycle compatible roadways since they have
sufficient existing shoulder width areas.

The statement is implicitly made here that a roadway must be designated in order to be
suitable for bicycle use, when in fact, bicycles are permitted on all but limited-access
roadways, and there are many roadways, especially in residential and rural areas, which
serve even novice and child cyclists well just as they are.

There is no discussion whatever of the design issues and problems which can occur with
special bicycle facilities on the roadway. The example from the Plan, shown in the photo
above, is a very nearly ideal one; a parkway with no cross traffic. Still, it appears that
the area to the right of the solid stripe is not a bike lane, as there are no bike lane
symbols or markings. It is then possible that this area would be used lawfully for parking
during times of heavy use of the park through which it passes. In that case, the roadway
would still be suitable for use by competent cyclists, but it would not attract children
or novices.

"Multi-use paths" are described as

a level of accommodation on par with the bicycle compatible roadways. They provide a
parallel path to the roadway usually within the roadway right-of-way. The path is
generally separated from the adjacent roadway. Multi-use means that pedestrians and
in-line skaters are also allowed on the facilities.

"Multi-use path" -- actually a sidepath.

Aside from the distressingly poor design elements, just what is intended by the
statement that sidepaths are "on a par with the bicycle-compatible roadways"?
This statement is meaningless, because the two types of facility are so different.

The
words "multi-use path" are generally used to describe what this report calls an
"independent trail." What the photo shows is in fact a two-way sidepath. It has
obstacles -- signposts and an electrical junction box -- too close to its edge to meet
standard engineering guidelines. Also, there is a large sight obstruction for drivers who
are about to cross the path to enter the roadway. These elements do not conform to the
geometric diagram in the Executive Summary.

The roadway in the photo appears to have ample width for bicycle/motor vehicle lane
sharing. The speed limit of 50 mph, typical of rural areas, does correspond to a
higher likelihood of overtaking collisions than occurs with lower speed limits, though
such a high speed limit is unusual for a roadway with curbs and driveway entrances.

The temptation to construct sidepaths is strong, because they can also serve as
sidewalks, and because many people believe that cycling on sidewalks is safe. But these
people are wrong.

Being adjacent to roadways, sidepaths do not provide a quiet, scenic recreational
experience. They reach more trip generators than typical trails, but they are just as
unsuitable for winter use by cyclists, and for use by fast cyclists when crowded.

But sidepaths -- unless they can be placed far from the roadway and are not crossed by
driveways or streets -- have serious hazards that "independent trails" do not
have:

even low-beam headlamps are aimed toward the cyclists who are riding
toward the road traffic in the nearest lane;

conflicts at driveways at intersections are very serious.

Sidepaths are the preferred choice only in a few special circumstances. Widening the
road (but adding a narrower sidewalk for pedestrians) and possibly lowering the speed
limit, or a trail away from the roadway, all would be preferable in the situation shown.

Sidepaths are also seen by cycling advocates as a threat to their right to ride on the
roads. Minnesota does not have a mandatory sidepath rule, but harassment of cyclists
for riding on the roadway is common where sidepaths exist.

"Basic accommodation"

"Basic Roadway accommodations" are described as follows:

...due to design and/or right-of-way constraints, bicycles must share road space with
motorized traffic. Under this situation, the county routinely removes obstacles and
hazards to bicycle travel along the roadway edge. In some cases where adjacent sidewalks
and occasional bicycle usage exists, a widened lane may be provided to provide refuge
space and vehicle reaction distance. Bicycle usage on basic roadways is not encouraged nor
is bicycle route signage included on these types of roads. Basic roadways are the lowest
desirable level of accommodation, and they do not meet the standards necessary for
inclusion into the primary or secondary county bicycle systems. Many existing urban and
rural roadways are currently basic roadways with little special provision for bicycles.

This is an extraordinary statement, because in fact, the great majority of roadways in
the project area would have no special provision for cyclists, even if the entire plan is
completed. Furthermore, the clear indication that a wide outside lane is an undesirable
accommodation for cyclists (and that the roadway is not "bicycle-compatible") is
without any basis in scientific fact, and runs counter to the experience of cyclists over
several decades.

And once again, a "level" statement is made, despite the earlier disclaimer.

The photo illustrating "basic roadway accommodations", unlike any of the
others, shows a location which is poorly maintained and esthetically unattractive. It is
on an arterial street -- though in fact, the great majority of the street mileage which is
not designated as a bicycle route is on local and collector streets that carry only light
traffic. The photo also shows a road defect that could just as easily occur anywhere else:
a wide gutter pan with an uneven seam such that cyclists would have to ride well to its
left or else risk a diversion-type fall. If this problem were remedied, the width of the
outside lane would be more than ample for bicycle-motor vehicle lane sharing.

Conclusion

This report fails to address three of the four major elements of a bicycle program, and
is very troubling in the way it addresses the remaining one.